Mirage 5-10: Pocket Queens vs. Q doorcard heads-up

I had another good night playing 5-10 stud at the Mirage. This particulary hand was interesting because I had a difficult time putting my opponent on the correct hand.


The third street boards are:


(Qc,Qs)9c (ME!)

(x,x)Qh

(x,x)Jd

(x,x)Jh

(x,x)4s

(x,x)7c

(x,x)8s

(x,x)6s


The 4s brings it in for $1. The 7c folds. The 8s limps. The 6s folds. I raise with my pocket Queens. Then a surprise comes. The Qh makes it $10 to go. Everybody else folds including the limpers.


At this point, I wondered if I was playing against the other two Queens. So far, this opponent hadn't been overly aggressive and I didn't expect him to reraise without a strong hand. I decide to just call and make a play for the pot on an expensive street. I didn't think 3-betting on a cheap street would accomplish anything.


What range of hands do you put my opponent on?


The fourth street boards are:


(Qc,Qs)9c,5d (ME!)

(x,x)Qh,2s


My opponent bets and I call.


What range of hands do you put my opponent on?


The fifth street boards are:


(Qc,Qs)9c,5d,Kc (ME!)

(x,x)Qh,2s,Th


I've caught a scare-card King and decide to use it. I check. My opponent bets. I raise trying to represent either trip Kings or Kings-up. My opponent is not impressed. He 3-bets me. That was truly unexpected. I called with the intention of going to a showdown.


At this point, I started doubting that my opponent had split Queens. It's hard to see him even playing pocket Aces this strong on fifth street. I started to suspect pocket 10s which tripped up on 5th street.


What range of hands do you put my opponent on?


The sixth street boards are:


(Qc,Qs)9c,5d,Kc,Qd (ME!)

(x,x)Qh,2s,Th,6h


The Qd was a pleasant surprise. I check. My opponent bets. I raise. My opponent 3-bets again. I 4-bet.


I just can't believe my opponent has a flush since he 2-bet on 3rd street and 3-bet on 5th street. He had never done anything that aggressive with a drawing hand. However, he could certainly have a 4-flush.


So, I 4-bet. My opponent thinks for a while and calls.


What range of hands do you put my opponent on?


The seventh street boards are:


(Qc,Qs)9c,5d,Kh,Qd (8h) (ME!)

(x,x)Qh,2s,Th,6h (x)


Damn- No full-house. I bet. My opponent called.


What do you think my opponent showed down?

It looks like three tens.

given what you put out i would fold on third street. he probably has aces kings or tens, if you gave us the correct assessment.

since you didnt and that wasnt a giant mistake. i would call him down until i beat aces.

one thing about stud is that you never know what they may come out of the whole with, so you do need to factor that into your decisions somewhat.

usually in a hand like this you will see at least three dueces from him.

My guess is a pair of Kings, perhaps with a second pair that he caught on the river. He might possibly have a flush with Ah, but I think that depends on how he has read your play in previous hands.


When are the Mirage 5-10 stud games running? I'll be visiting in a few weeks.

Would you still fold on third street if both Queens were live?

1. I think your opponents most likely hands up to fifth street are K's or aces. Very few 5-10 players will reraise with a dead card. Also most will not reraise with a threeflush.


2. I think he showed down a pair of k's or 's with a heart.


Pat

Hello,Dynasty!

He had a set of t's. Since he checked 6th St., he did not have a flush--otherwise,he would have known that he had the best hand and would have re-raised.

He raised on 3rd with pocket t's.


Sitting Bull

There are usually 1 or 2 5-10 stud games running all the time.

I have to admit that folding on 3rd street didn't even enter my mind (Although, folding on 5th street when I got 3-bet was an option).


Even though one of my Queens is dead, my big pair is bigger than anybody's door card. It seems that folding to a 2-bet like this will make me a target of other players. I'll be the guy who always folds for a reraise- the guy who always fears pocket Aces. I don't think I could regularly make this fold and not suffer some consequences for it.


I've seen plenty of 5-10 players reraise with hands (4,4)K on third street. In fact, I raised with that hand on the immediate left of the bring-in last week.


What could be missing in my thought process which makes me unwilling to let go of pocket Queens here?

Thanks, I'll be sure to try it out. Last time I was in town I just played 1-5 at the Monte Carlo and it was a rock garden. Looking forward to a more profitable game (more profitable for somebody, anyway).

My trip Queens were good enough and I took the pot.


My opponent had pocket 2s and tripped up on fourth street. He had the 2h in the hole and had the four flush to go with his trips on 6th street but, as he said, "[He] could only buy the Jack of Spades on the river" and paid me off.


Re-raising with deuces and an overcard to play heads-up with dead money in the pot- I didn't think he'd make that kind of play. I would, of course.

The monte carlo is where my brother raised to $2 in a 1-5 stud game with rolled tens and everyone folded.


Pat

I had the same experience, anytime I raised at the Monte Carlo $1-5 game the locals would fold 95% of the time. Luckily, in the games I played we had the odd fishy tourist and one maniac.


The Monte Carlo does have some nice things going for it: (a) excellent room ambience; (b) very professional staff; (c) decent jackpot if you have four of a kind or higher (I imagine this is what magnetizes the rocks... do they still have this jackpot?).

"Re-raising with deuces and an overcard to play heads-up with dead money in the pot- I didn't think he'd make that kind of play. I would, of course."


That play is frequently correct in games where the initial ante structure is relatively larger than it is at $5-$10 stud. (That's the "little stud" versus "real stud" argument I have made before.) See SCSFAP-21 for more information.

This hand speaks to the value of aggression -- and also how costly it can be if overdone. Here, your opponent got it heads up with some dead money in the pot. If he doesn't trip up on fourth, he can still bet, then try for a free card on fifth if he doesn't make an open pair (or hit trips there). His check there could make sense if you think he has pocket kings or aces and is waiting for a second pair, you'd be unlikely to bet your unimproved queens here. Of course if you catch something threatening he can fold. And, given that he had a queen to start, he may have thought you were coming with a draw and been tryiing to steal. So I like his aggression. But I also like your calls on third and fourth. I think your check raise on fifth is wrong against a player you didn't think was very aggressive or prone to be on a total steal this late. So here's where I aggression can be costly. I'd have probably folded at this point or called down. You're either not winning by much here or are losing badly (as was the case). Basically, the case queen was your only win (you could catch runners for flush, straight or house) while your opponent has a one-card redraw to a full house.

They still have those Jackpots for four-of-a-kind or better.


Yesterday, while playing Hold'em, I held AhJh. The board had the Qh and the Kh. If the Th came on the river, it would be worth more than $2,000 for me. And the river was.......the Td. D'oh!


In stud, the diamond Royal Flush has climbed all the way to $3,700-$3,800 as of yesterday.

I won the jackpot there once with quad Q's (had trips on 3rd street, went head-to-head vs. Kings full). Unfortunately, the Q's jackpot was only about $120 that day. Not bad all the same.

Synopsis: The mathematics of dead cards, over-pairs, and under-pairs, there relevant inter-relationships, and their impact on changes in the appropriate strategic alterations in play


Dear Dynasty,


Well presented hand. (As usual) The extra time you take to present your hands makes their analysis, just that much more productive.


OK off and running: How would I have analyzed this hand.


First like Ray I would be considering folding on third Street, and the reason would be because of what I call “the impact of drag and Boost on the mathematics of playing over and under pairs”


Now I would be thinking to myself. “Doc if my opponent is raising with pocket Jacks or Tens (an under pair to my Queens) I am glad that he has that dead Queen in his door."


The reason is that his catching that Queen has put a drag on the win-ability of his hand by approximately 4%.


In other words if I was betting Queens and my opponent was chasing me with Jacks or Tens, and he caught one of my Queens (and he didn’t have an over card to my Queens) the probability of my winning the hand would now jump from 64% to 68%.


There is nothing more fun to respond to an opponent when he catches one of your big pair cards and says “I caught one of your Aces, how do you FEEL now Doc.“


By saying “ I feel Great! That Ace just killed your hand by another 4%." And then watch their smile fade.


But lets look at the other possibility, that I think Ray and I were thinking about, “If he is betting Kings or Aces, I will probably need to hit a set, or to hit two pair (when he doesn’t make two pair) to beat his Aces or Kings.”


And what percentage of time will a live pair trip up by the river? Answer approximately (9% of the time) So the over all Drag and Boost effect is going to have just the OPPOSITE effect on my hand's win-ability.


Now my hand will have a combined win ability change of (9% minus 4%) for an overall decrease in the win ability of my hand of approximately 5%


Now how often will Kings or Aces beat Queens (If the Queens doesn’t have a live over card) Answer 64% of the time.


And if I add this new Boost to his hand,(by my decreased probability of making a set) his probability of winning have now raised to 69%. And those are pretty grim odds.


And that's why I feel that one of Ray’s and my initial considerations would have been to drop the hand.


So my next consideration would have been, what is the likely hood of this particular player, (and players at this limit in general) raising with an over pair.


Well at Stud's higher limits, it’s not uncommon for a player to re-raise you with an Ace or a King with a live small pair. Or they will even rise with an Ace King Queen (3 over cards to your door) to improve their odds of winning by isolating their hands. And there are several other posible hands that they might also raise with.


But at 5/10 stud I would read most players as having either Aces or Kings in the hole.


The other likely hand that he could have is a pair of split Queens. If he does you now both have a dead pair.


The only difference (and a big one) would be that you were aware that both of you have dead big pairs, while he wouldn't.


Now in this situation when I am in a MULTI-WAY HAND hands, and I know that I have a dead pair. (ie. an opponent might pair a deacard Queen) I am usualy thinking of ways to get away from the hand.


If you do decide to continue with the hand. And he is playing a pocket over-pair, you do have the advantage of knowing that he can’t make Kings or Aces up, with out your knowing it until the river.


Other thoughts on this hand


When you hit a King I wouldn’t have been “too happy” because I would be reading him for having probable Kings or Aces, and so my catching a King (with an unimproved probable underpaid) could very well be putting an even bigger drag on my hand.


Consequently I would not have raised him when I caught the King.


But when you did re- raise him, and he 3 bet you, what did he almost have to have?


Answer:

1 A set of tens

2 Aces

3 Kings

4 A set of some other rank

(I wouldn't have read him for a flush draw, since his betting pattern would have been so inconsistent for that hand)


Now if you had read him properly (he did have a set) what should you have done when he 3 bet you? Answer: I think you should have dropped the hand.


With the Stud probability coefficients on fifth and sixth street being 2.5% and 3%. That translates in to the fact, that your chance of hitting your set is 5.5% during the remainder of the hand.


This hand is going from Grim to Grimmer.


But I feel that you made a mistake when you called his 3 bet. And that then you had the good fortune to makeing that 5.5% hit of your set.


In the Eastern religions hitting that card would be called an example of good Karma. Since you are a good guy, your Karma sucked that Queen right out of the deck.


Unfortunately since the last time I gave a free card was on “January the first 1998,“ I have miserable Karma. That’s why I always have to "do the math“.


Thanks for your excellent presentation of this hand. I’m glad that you won.


You deserved it.


Most sincerely

Doc AZ


PS “Scooping a big pot, is better than having a beautiful mind any day” BJM

DocAZ, I find your response very interesting re: 3rd and 4th. This is similar to the question I was trying to address with my recent post in the "Other" forum re: pair of 10s raised by a 9 in the door. Marginal hands or marginal situations and how to play them is huge. I can assure you that in $1-5 with a .50 ante many players will raise with a variety of hands. You would not want to reflexively be throwing away queens against a raise in this situation (not that I think this is what you or Ray is suggesting). But you also don't want to end up getting tied on to them unimproved to the river. The best strategy I've been able to come up with is to lean towards calling, adjust depending on live cards, the other player's style and any tells, and be ready to get off if I don't improve on 4th or 5th. Playing these hands is really tough, because they aren't draws, yet playing them aggressively can be really costly. The hope is to either improve or catch a threatening card on 4th, bet and either take the pot or get a free card on 5th (or improve and bet for value, of course). I also think hands like these are more playable if you have a second caller (NOT a second raiser) on third. You're hoping he'll fold on fourth if you catch good, leaving some dead money in the pot.

In what Mason Malmuth calls a "small stud" game, e.g. $1-$5, the idea is supposedly to trap a lot with a big edge, not to spend a lot of time playing marginal hands since most if not all pots will be multi-way. If that's true, then throwing away a marginal hand rather than playing it may be your best move. When you get up to a "big stud" game where players make tricky plays more often (deception counting for more because of the larger percentage ante), then maybe it's time to start focusing on marginal hands--in part because that larger ante justifies the increased risk. But in small stud, isn't it the wrong strategy? I doubt Mason is watching this thread, but I'd be curious for his input here. Maybe he'd argue that to the contrary, focusing on how to play marginal hands is good practice for moving up.

There is a good lesson to be learned here and that is to play live cards. Your opponent almost certainly misplayed his hand badly. He had a pair of twos and a Q kicker against a player who easily could have a pair of q's. He got unlucky but that is what happens when you play badly. I certainly would have folded. It is not as if a two pair with Q's up is that strong anyway, and there is a big difference even between K's and Q's here.


Pat

One thing to remember is that in a 1-5 stud game the strategy is very different when there is an ante. A 50 cent ante is 10% of the big bet, which is the same ante as at 5-10. These are two very different games. At 5-10 you frequently play so called marginal hands, but they are not "marginal" in the sense that they would be at 15-30. Many times a hand like 88A might be the best hand at 5-10 even against a raiser. As you move up it is more likely that the raiser has a better hand. But it is also more likely that he has a worse hand, so it is a tough situation. It is much easier to play these type of hands at lower limits and the considerations are different. For example with a "marginal" hand against a raiser at 15-30 I would be much less likely to call, and in fact rarely do; usually it is a fold or reraise. AT 5-10 you can call much more often even against a raiser.


Pat

But Pat, isn't it significant that $1-$5 tends to be more multiway than the bigger limits? And what about the bigger percentage rake? Both factors would seem to mitigate against playing marginal hands as often as you would at $5-$10. I don't speak from any great experience; just asking.

Yes it is significant. I think that the 1-5 game with an ante and a typical rake is virtually unbeatable in the long run, at least for anythin more than a couple of dollars an hour. an average 5-10 player can win more than the best 1-5 players in these games. teh size of the ante is 50 cents in 1-5 and 5-10 but the effect is much larger in the 1-5 games.


It really depends on what you consider to be a marginal hand. In a 15-30 game a threeflush with a Q high and two dead is a marginal hand, but it is not marginal at 1-5 since even if you get lucky on fourth street and make a flush you can expect multiple callers to call the whole way. Another example might be three cards to a broadway. AT higher levels you raise hoping to either steal the antes or limit the field and make a high pair or two pair. It is a marginal hand. But at 1-5 you can call and if you catch a straight you can win a big pot. These marginal hands play very diferently. So the size of the ante and the multiway nature must be taken into account.


You must play enough hands at the 1-5 game to overcome the rake but many of those hands cannot be played in the same way you would play them at 5-10 or higher.


Hope this helps,

Pat

Dear MRB,


In your post you made about 7 excellent points in a row. And you presented them about as well or better than the authors of most poker “text “ books do.


I tend to disagree with you though, on your last point.


You implied that with a compromised split pair of Queens, you would prefer to have a third hand in the action with you. [To improve your potential profitability.]


I would tend to disagree for these reasons.


1. You are probably behind already. (To the probable,but what turned out to be, non existent pocket Aces or Kings)


2 If a third player does decide to chase you, mathematically the most likely calling hand that he would have would be a pair (probably a pair with a King or Ace kicker)

[16% pair, 2.3% 3 straight, 5.1% flush Starting hand probabilities.]


3 Your compromised Queens (one dead Queen in an opponents door) means that your likely hood of making a two pair trip or better hand by the river, just dropped by 4.9% Because of the decrease in the probability of your making trips, quads or a full house.


4 And finally because of the concept of the multi-way hand paradox. (Which was so well illustrated by DMZ’s parable of the race horse)[Similar but unique from the parable of throwing "chips" before swine]


An explanation of the race horse's parable explanation.


If you have an over pair to a drawing hand and you have a 60% chance of winning and a 40% chance of loosing, and then if a third hand should join the contest (which also had a 40% chance of winning) your new winning probability is 60% times 60% for 36% and if another similar hand calls your winning probability drops to 60x60x60 for 21.6%


So my feeling is that “very few hands do not profit from being played heads up” (scsfap’s 21)


Thank you for presenting such a very well described analysis.(Forgive me if I sound patronizing, but at least I didn't check raise you. As I did my wife Honey,last Friday “which almost ended up in my sleeping alone this last weekend”


“ I don’t mind you check raising me when we are in a multi-way pot Doc, but for the love of god!”

Honey 2001 [a poker odyssey]


Women “you cant play without them and some times they wont let you play with them.”


Most sincerely,

Doc AZ

I'm with you Doc AZ -- my only point is that sometimes in these low games people will chase with a lousy draw or a small pair and drop on 4th if they don't hit perfect. There are a surprising number of folks who will play hands like 9-10-A

unsuited.

Dear RB,


You make some very good points.


BUT /images/frown.gifwhy does it seem that there is always at least one “but” in these discussions)


I have not read Mason’s discussion on the strategic variances between high and low limit stud. Which I VERY much look forward to doing.


But I feel that the differences between the different limits is related more to:


1 The typicaly decreased number of primary callers at the higher limits.


2. The aggressiveness of the players at the higher limits.


3. And the higher degree of deception used at the higher limits.


And I feel that it is not related as much to the ante to secondary bet ratio.


For example at $3/$6 dollar stud, the ante to secondary bet ratio id 50-cents/6 dollars or 1/12.


But at the $15/$30 dollar limit stud game the ante to secondary bet ratio is “usually “ $2/$30 dollars or 1/15


Consequently the 3/6 games ratio of 1/12 is an actually higher ratio, than the 15/30 games ratio of 1/15.


So the 3/6 game actually has a “bigger” relative ante. And yet the strategies needed to beat the two games are quite different.


Incidentally it’s “the man-eating rakes’ that are the killers at the 3/6 limit (and other low limit stud games.) That is one of the reasons,that once a player has mastered his or her Stud playing strategies, it is usually wise to move up to the “easier” games.


But don’t kid your self. {From one who has learned the hard way} The higher limit games have some players that are as tough or tougher to beat than you will find at ANY other intellectual challenge. (But that is ALSO why I love stud so much)


Mason: If you happen to remember where you described your analysis of the differences between low and high limit stud, I would appreciate knowing. It would be a superb discussion for this forum, since we have such a good mixture of players from differing limits.


Most sincerely,

Doc AZ

Dynasty - most writers don't have a sense of suspense that you have. I immediately checked your subsequent posts until I found the end of the story.


I probably would have done the same thing (with the possible exception of re-raising once or twice), but I would have had to have played hand that to the end - just to see what the other guy had (would speak volumes on the other guy's betting approach). Two points I'd like to make:


1) most of the times a pair of deuces is a sucker's hand. A few times I've been dealt that and tried to build something of it and been burnt in the end. These days I'm extremely weary of playing with a couple 2's and in no way would I have played as aggressively as the other guy did.


2)With your 2 queens hidden and one of his showing, you have a huge advantage over him. At that point the only thing he could have better than you is a pair of kings or aces to bet like he did, and as the cards kept coming you knew that he wasn't getting any help (other than the possible flush - which based on his betting approach was not there until maybe the last card)..


I would have played it the same and reading it was quite entertaining...

Yes Dynasty...I like your posts...very entertaining and full of suspense!...keep em comin!


I think he made the right play because he had a live pair in the hole and the strongest unduplicated upcard (he got unlucky because you had the queens in the hole and knew he very likely didnt)...He probably had you as a split pair of nines at best. Before you posted the results I would have had him as Aces, Kings in the hole or A,K straight flush draw but knowing the answer it now makes sense that he reraised with small pair and highest upcard and continued to play aggressively when he made trip 2s.


regards WD

Doc,


You stated:

"With the Stud probability coefficients on fifth and sixth street being 2.5% and 3%. That translates in to the fact, that your chance of hitting your set is 5.5% during the remainder of the hand."


Can you clarity what this means. Is this true just for pairs hitting their sets or is this based on how many total outs you have, with or without dead cards. And what is the math for determining your odds on 5th and 6th street?


Thanks for sharing your vast knowledge.

Hello,DocAZ,

Thanks for your excellent presentation on"hand counterfeiting" ,aka,"hand drag".

About that big wired pair you put your opponent on--he cannot improve to two pairs without your knowing it-BUT he can trip-up BEFORE 7th St. WITHOUT you knowing it!


Sitting Bull